District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill supports the implementation of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, which is central to delivering on the Government’s objective to restore law and order and to restore real consequences for crime. The sentencing bill is around reducing the ability of judges to massively reduce sentences through a series of discounts, and limiting that, and one of the consequences of that legislation is that there will be more pressure on the courts. We’re very conscious, also, of the fact that many New Zealanders are waiting too long to achieve justice through the court processes. There have been very long delays in the courts. They got worse particularly over COVID and, frankly, got worse over the last few years. As a Government, we’re very determined to do many things to speed up the processes of the courts.

This bill will help alleviate pressure to a modest degree. It amends the District Court Act 2016 to increase the statutory maximum for District Court judges by one, an increase from 182 to 183 fulltime-equivalent judges. I don’t think there’s much need to go into the detail much further than that, other than to say that this Government is committed to restoring law and order in this country. We are bringing in a raft of changes to toughen consequences, particularly for serious repeat offenders. That’s not the only focus of our justice policy; we’re also very much interested in ensuring that prisoners get access to rehabilitation programmes, which is why we’ve allowed for that to happen for remand prisoners. We’re also focused on dealing with some of the long-term causes of crime, such as making sure that kids actually go to school, which is a useful thing and one of the most important things that can help deal with youth crime and the funnel of justice that we’ve inherited.

There’s much going on in this space, and it’s good to see widespread support for this legislation in the House. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, thank you. What an extraordinary speech from the Minister of Justice—and the temerity of saying he thinks he’s doing well in reducing crime by sending kids to school and feeding them the rubbish that that Government is providing to them. The only reason this bill is needed is because this Government wants to put more people in jail; that is their only justice policy. It’s a provenly wrong and failed policy, and we have things like boot camps contributing to the problem. Yes, we support this bill, because we do need faster and more-effective justice, but the only justice that those people are delivering is putting people in jail. They’ve seen the backlogs in the court, and they have made zero progress to date.

I make a prediction: this will make no difference whatsoever. They will continue to go behind on access to justice, and remand populations in our prisons will increase because of the failed policies, like arresting people because of what they are wearing—absolutely ridiculous policies. There is a problem of law and order in our society, and we need to address it, but the idea that putting people in jail for longer, taking away discretion from judges in sentencing decisions, not giving discounts for youth and remorse, is, in some way, going to solve the problem is just a failed policy which goes against advice. It goes against evidence, and it goes against common sense. Yes, you’ll get our vote for this trivial little bill, but in terms of your wider justice policies, it’s time to wake up.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party in support of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. However, there are a number of things that I would like to address. Now, I think it is appropriate for us to start by just sort of providing some context around the committee stage of this bill. The bill itself is not controversial. It is to increase the maximum number of District Court judges from 182 to 183 fulltime-equivalent (FTE). This comes as a part of the package of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill as well.

Going to the committee stage, there were a number of questions that we asked the Minister during the committee stage that were not responded or articulated with a response. I think, most importantly, one of the things that we have asked during the committee stage is where would they anticipate the judge to go and how would that then be divided? Are we looking at part-time judges in multiple locations? While moving up by one, in terms of fulltime-equivalent, that could mean five judges in different locations at 0.2 additional to that. Where are the judges? What court are the judges going to? One of the things that the Minister did highlight during the committee stage is that the District Court doesn’t just cover the District Court but also covers the Family Court, as well as the Youth Court.

The lack of response that we were given during the committee stage is a bit of a concern. The whole time the Minister was talking about the policy intent behind it and the fact that the official information, which we were given, is that they will need to have one increase. We have mentioned it in previous speeches in the House, as well, that the last time the number of District Court judges was increased was in 2019, where it was increased from 165 to 182. This time around, the advice we were given was just one, but without clearly articulating where that judge may be going or even which court they may be going to.

Understandably, when we were looking at clause 4, section 12 amended—when we were looking at the principal Act that this is amending, which is the District Court Act 2016—section 11 of that particular Act talks about the appointment of the judge. I one hundred percent agreed with the Minister during the committee stage that, when we are looking at the appointment itself, that has a level of independence; as we see with the principle of comity, the appointment of our judges is done independently. However, in this case, for the Government to actually say that only one judge is needed, there must be some level of understanding or some level of conversation that they’ve had with the justiciary system on where that’s going to go, otherwise how could anyone so confidently say, “All we need is one more District Court judge FTE.”? That is the kind of clarity that we did not receive during the committee stage. I think that is something that must be highlighted as part of the third reading.

The other thing that we heard from the Minister during the committee stage was the broader sort of justice reform that we are seeing in this space. One of the things that the Minister specifically mentioned during the committee stage was that we have more things coming and there are more policies that we are looking at. Again, something like this in terms of the number of District Court judges cannot be discussed or cannot be decided in silo, in terms of the broader context of some of the policies that the Minister mentioned during the committee stage.

I think, when we are looking at the reason that this bill was split in the first reading into two separate assessment processes or scrutiny processes through the select committee stage and second reading and committee stage, aside from the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, it is the fact that it’s supposed to be a response to the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. However, as we’re currently going through the committee stage for that particular bill, there are a number of issues that are really, really important that potentially would tie into this particular bill and whether this bill itself provides the support and the access and the resources and also the availability and the possibility to mitigate some of that backlog. I don’t know if the accompanying bill and this bill will actually do what is needed in the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill.

Overall, yes, having one additional judge, love it, it’s great; we would like to see more, as many of the submitters have mentioned. They think that one isn’t going far enough; that in order for us to really address the backlog, we need to look at more. But, again, within the court hierarchy, this is just one aspect of the court. We are also looking at a lot of the work that needs to be done from the High Court, from the Court of Appeal, and also from the Supreme Court perspective.

One of the things that is particularly important and that I want to highlight as part of this is the fact that one of the things that has been introduced in the other bill—again, coming back to the reason why this bill even exists in the first place, which is because of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. One other thing that was introduced in the other bill is around the increase or addition of aggravating factors. The particular aspect that I want to home in on is the inclusion of section 66 (1)(b), (c), and (d) of the Crimes Act 1961, particularly around party liability. That is something that is incredibly complex and is something that in many, many cases has gone all the way up to the Supreme Court, if we are looking at a case of Ahsin v Queen in 2014. For us, looking at this particular bill and the number of District Court judges and just increasing the District Court judge number from 182 to 183, this creates a broader problem of the bottleneck effect we may potentially see in the higher courts as a result of the changes to the other piece of legislation.

With that, you see that if we do have the increase of one judge FTE across the board and we’re seeing that being done and we’re seeing that then going through to the next year—and we’re seeing that actually then it means that, yes, maybe at a District Court level we are seeing that this will maybe mitigate some of the issues and address some of the concerns—once we get to the higher courts like the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court, we are stuck with the same concern and the same issue and the same backlog created as a result of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. Again, with that and the committee stage, the question then still remains of why we are only increasing the number of District Court judges just by one and not looking at other potential court judges.

I will say that I agree with what the Minister was saying: that when you are appointing a judge, it is permanent. There is a level of tenure, and you can’t really just easily go back without reintroducing other primary legislation bringing the number of District Court judges down. At the same time, what we are seeing, and in terms of some of the other reports that I asked the Minister about during the committee stage—around the latest report in 2022 for improving access to civil justice. Particularly in paragraph 40 of that report, it talks about the fact that we are looking at a decline of the District Court’s civil jurisdiction in response to the fact that District Court judges, and the District Courts in general, simply cannot handle the workload that is there. When we do have some of this evidence and some of these reports that we are seeing, it still remains: why are we only increasing the number of judges by one, even though in 2019 we increased it from 160 to 182—by 22 District Court judges? All of this, sort of combined together, does beg the question of what is the ultimate policy goal, because we can’t look at bills—and particularly when we look at the judiciary system, we can’t look at it in silo.

I think one of the things I would really like to address, as sort of the finishing remark for this, is that as we are looking at the District Court judges and the number of District Court judges and the way that we’re appointing District Court judges, it must also be said that we are entering a new phase where our judges don’t necessarily reflect the cultural diversity and also the diversity that we are seeing in Aotearoa. I think it’s particularly pertinent when we’re looking at the accompanying bill, the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, where it will potentially have the possibility, like I mentioned, with the introduction of party liability as an aggravating factor, of increasing and further punishing Māori, but also women in general and wāhine Māori. We are seeing that wāhine Māori already make up 63 percent of the prison population. I think, when we look at this bill, we support it but we do think it can go a lot further. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a relatively simple bill, increasing District Court judges by one from 182 to 183 fulltime-equivalent. This is actually really important, that we’re acknowledging that the workload within the District Courts over the last few years has increased quite significantly. We have been appointing more judges to meet this increased workload, but it has meant that we have reached the maximum number, and we need to increase that by one.

Whilst this Government is very focused on the victims out in our communities of crime, we also have to acknowledge that when we’re in the process of accountability for those who are perpetrating those crimes, that justice must be delivered in a timely manner. Justice delayed is justice denied, so we have to make sure we find that balance of making sure that going through our court system is done in an appropriate way.

I, as Minister for Children, with reforms around youth crime and lowering the amount of victims within the community and saying that there must be accountability for those crimes and we must be making sure that our communities are safe—in that process, yes, there will be more pressure on the courts, but this is part of taking accountability for the crimes that are being committed within our communities and making sure that there is justice for the victims of those crimes.

I really support this bill, making sure that our justice system moves faster, but also will not apologise for our Government’s focus on victims in our communities and making sure there is accountability for those crimes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill, the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, at its third reading. This bill is common-sense action again from this Government. It increases the statutory number of District Court judges by one, lifting the number from 182 to 183. It’s quite that simple. This will help the District Court run smoothly, especially to support the Government’s action on crime through the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill.

We acknowledge that there are long delays in our justice system that need to be addressed, and this Government is also addressing that issue and those concerns in various other reforms, and those reforms are through court technology and modern case management systems.

New Zealand First is eager to see this bill receive Royal assent, and New Zealand First is pleased to support a bill that is part of this Government’s work on law and order. We look forward to further action, reducing wait-times, and delivering effective justice for New Zealanders. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Hei tīmatanga māku, ka riro māku ngā whakaaro a Te Pāti Māori e whakapuaki mō te pire e kīia nei ko te District Court Amendment Bill.

Engari hei tīmatanga māku ka mihi atu rā ki te hunga kātahi anō ka wehe i te Whare. Arā, ki Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, o Uenuku, o Tamahaki, o Tamakana, me tō rātou whakatau i tā rātou kerēme tuatahi me te Karauna.

Hoki rawa mai ki tēnei pire me tōna whai pānga ki a Uenuku, ki a Tamakana, ki a Tamahaki me te whānui, te horapatanga o te iwi Māori. Ēnei mea ngā pire o tēnei Whare e kore e noho takakau noa. Ka whai pānga ki tēnā pire, ki tēnā pire, ki tēnā whare, ki tēnā whare, ki tēnā iwi, ki tēnā iwi, koia te pūtake o aku kōrero.

Kei tāruatia, torutia, whātia ngā kōrero kua tukuna kē e te Whare. Nō reira ka hoki au ki te reo Pākehā, e horapa ai te māramatanga.

[To commence, it is up to me to express Te Pāti Māori’s thoughts about this bill, which is called the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill.

But to start with, I acknowledge the group of people who have just departed from the House, namely, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, Uenuku, Tamahaki, and Tamakana, on the settling of their first claim with the Crown.

And returning to this bill and its relevance to Uenuku, Tamakana, and Tamahaki, and the breadth and spread of the Māori people. The bills of this House don’t exist in isolation. They have connections to each bill, to each house, to each tribe; that is the basis of my speech.

Lest the statements which have already been made by the House are repeated for the second, third or fourth time, therefore, I will return to English, so that the understanding is extended.]

Just to begin, I would like to acknowledge the whānau who were here only moments ago, a few minutes ago, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and their hapū that they represent, their iwi that they represent, Uenuku, Tamakana, and Tamahaki. And I want to just say to the House that bills don’t exist in isolation, but I see the behaviour of the House promotes the idea. Iwi come to this House seeking a face-to-face discussion with the Crown to discuss the impacts of the many bills of the Crown on those iwi, and this bill is one of them.

It may seem insignificant in nature, increasing the amount of District Court judges from 182 to 183. It doesn’t seem like much, but when you consider it in an ecosystem of bills, in an ecosystem of ministries of the House, it maintains the settings, the societal settings that have been produced out of the behaviour that the Crown just apologised for. They are indeed connected. They are connected in every way, and we shouldn’t just brush them aside as some small bill with not much influence.

Bills do not exist in isolation; that’s my point. Despite the fact that this is a relatively simple bill, with a relatively simple outcome, it still has a large impact, particularly when you consider the raft of justice legislation being promoted by this Government—a raft of legislation that, as described by the Minister’s own ministry, is likely to double the prison population in New Zealand over a short period of time. What we know about that is that the current population is about 10,000. If you double it, there will be another 10,000, and half of them will be Māori. That’s the connection of one piece of legislation to the next—that’s the connection of one piece of legislation to the next. A hundred years of experience tells us this.

Jamie Arbuckle: How do you know that?

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Quite easily—I thought you fellas were on to it. Bills do not exist in isolation—

Hon Member: The Chair?

Hon Member: The Chair—are you not on to it?

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, I see that the decorum of the House has rapidly regressed from 15 minutes ago, when the Government was here apologising for appalling behaviour, and now you want to drag us back down into it.

Carl Bates: Follow the rules and we wouldn’t need to.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Mr Bates, who gave the last speech—the last speech to Uenuku, Tamakana, and Tamahaki—here you are running the kōrero again.

Tom Rutherford: Oh, back to the bill.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, back to the bill? My colleagues on this side don’t understand how I connect everything to the bill, but that’s OK; they’ll catch up at some point in the future.

I think someone said it, though: they said, you know, apologies mean nothing when the behaviour continues. I see the behaviour continuing—your apologies mean nothing. And, you know, maybe we could just consider listening—

Tom Rutherford: Is 8 a.m. too early for you? You could have come to the select committee.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, I think the Minister for the South Island should be more worried about getting ferries for them.

Heoi anō e te Pīka, kia hoki ki a koe, ko tāku e mea nei—the point of my speech is that bills do not exist in isolation. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think it’s really important to hammer the point that the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, as simple as it may sound, as has been said by others, does not exist in isolation, in terms of a political agenda that will actually see our judicial system overloaded by other bills that do not have an evidential basis—other bills that will actually put pressure on the judiciary, that will not address the core drivers of issues like violence, and that will actually criminalise Māori, low-income people, disabled people, and many other groups that have already been failed.

I think, to me, what was really telling is that the bill was described by members of the Government as a common-sense bill, but, as my colleague Lawrence already explained at the committee of the whole House, actually there was little common sense explained by the Minister when it came to justifying the increase of District Court judges by just one. At the end of the day, this is a country that is seeing a population increase, that is seeing a political agenda by this Government to double our prison population, and one that actually is not, despite all the bumper sticker comments from the Government side, centred on supporting victims. Actually, if they followed the evidence on what some of the best ways to support victims are, yes, sure, supporting and resourcing the judiciary is one way, but when you already have people who work at the front lines telling this Government that some of the other reforms that relate to this will actually lead to victims being potentially worse off—for example, when it comes to issues around retail crime—I think it reeks of a disconnection with the evidence, in relation to what else they are proposing.

When we have already victims that have low incomes unable to adequately access things like legal aid, it really tells us that, actually, this isn’t a Government that is genuinely centred and focused on supporting victims who face violence. When we have a Government that is not actually supporting—for example, providing adequate income support to—people needing to leave issues of family violence, that tells us that this is not a Government genuinely supportive of victims. This bill in and of itself, yes, will go a small way towards increasing access to justice, but I think it needs to be said what kind of justice this Government is actually seeking to achieve. As the previous speaker, Tākuta Ferris, noted, we’ve seen the rapid shift in rhetoric and approach when a tiny bit of not even full justice being delivered in the previous bill now is kind of turned upside down when it comes to making a mockery of a person.

I think we deserve better than high-level rhetoric statements that this bill is common sense when the evidential basis for it is not actually being presented to us, not at the committee of the whole House stage, not by the Government side, as to exactly the justification as to why we’re only seeing an increase in District Court judges by one. I think we also deserve a robust analysis and commentary from the House, from the Government side at least, as to which populations, for example, are likely most served by the current make-up of the judiciary and why this justifies increasing it by just one.

Finally, I want to touch on the reality that, actually, when we have a Government that is doing a lot of other harm in other spaces, whether it’s the environment, inequality, etc., I think I’d rather be spending the time of this House debating something like this, because actually, in isolation, this won’t cause harm. If time is going to be spent on things like this—that are not going to directly result in our communities being harmed—compared to other pieces of legislation, then let’s do so. Actually, I’d rather be standing here right now debating a very, very, very small reform than enabling the Government to push forward pieces of legislation that attack Te Tiriti, the environment, people living in low-income communities. I invite the Government to bring forward as many primary pieces of legislation they have to increase the number of District Court judges one at a time, so that perhaps this is all we do this term.

This is a very clear illustration of the difference in perspectives from that side of the House to this side of the House. Over here, we believe that if you do the crime, you do the time—if you do the crime, you go into prison where you should be, and you need District Court judges to make that happen. Over there, let’s be very clear, you are hearing what’s going to happen should they ever get—God help us!—back to the Treasury benches. They’re going to open the gates to the prisons and let people out, because they don’t believe that if you go and do something wrong, you should go into jail, because they don’t say that, actually, it’s logical: there is stuff that’s been happening, we need to put people through the court process, and you need a judge for that process. It’s pretty common sense; pretty basic. They’ll catch up eventually.

It is important that we ensure that this bill goes through the process so that we can have the District Court judges in place to do what New Zealanders want in this country, and that is the restoration of law and order. That’s what they wanted, that’s what they voted for, and that is what this Government has been delivering. As much as they want to hoot and toot and puff and huff, Madam Speaker, you’ve got two options here—you don’t; the country does—they can either have a Government that ensures law and order, or they can have a bunch of the Opposition—I won’t use anything too colourful to describe them, in case I get in trouble, and this kōrero is all about not getting in trouble, and ensuring that those that do, feel the consequences. So the alternative is a bunch of the Opposition who literally want to unlock the gates and let people out of prison, because they have us on when the prison numbers go up because we actually hold people accountable. That is what New Zealand wants. This bill helps ensure that happens in a very practical, common-sense way. I commend it to the House.

Oh that life were that simple! It would be easy if we could do—look at what’s happening at the moment in America. You’ve got a man who aspires, who arrives and then “This is a good idea; let’s just do it.” And we know this could take about five years to actually fix some of that damage.

Listen to what Mr Tākuta Ferris said: everything is joined up. This is a very simple bill. It is just about increasing the number of District Court judges. Now, what I’d invite those opposite to do is to reflect on what the role of a District Court judge is. He or she is a part of a much bigger ecosystem. By the time a set of facts arrive before a District Court judge, there are so many component parts that have got there, so that judge is actually a really important part of the decision making.

I’d also invite those opposite to have a look at another piece of legislation which has been oft referred to in relation to this, where we are actually going to be purely prescribing outcomes. Well, we might as well get AI to do it, because we’re going to end up by actually—we put these highly qualified people, and some have been very good lawyers, some have been very good commercial lawyers, some of them have been very good prosecutors, in the chair and say, “Tick this box.”

Now, as a young police officer starting—and I know there’s a lot of old ex-cops who are on all sorts of websites who will be sitting listening to this at the moment, because they tend to like to listen to any piece of legislation that is around law and order; each one of them will be sitting talking about old District Court judges that they knew, old characters—we in Wellington had Ben Scully. Now, Ben Scully was that judge when you had your first “Not guilty”, when you were appearing—Ben was a character, but the important thing with Ben was that, if you went in and you weren’t dressed properly, you would get a dressing down, as would the lawyers, as would the defendants. They were actually an integral part of things. When we’re actually considering this legislation, and particularly other legislation—as Mr Ferris has quite rightly pointed out, everything is joined up—just what I’d invite you to do is to ensure that you do have an understanding of the broader ecosystem.

Mr Meager, I know that you’ve stood in the District Court; you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about. If you just break the District Court judge’s role down to its component parts, which actually the legislation which is coming next is endeavouring to do, then you’re going to lose an important part of justice. Those District Court judges—guys like Sir David Carruthers, who went on to become the Independent Police Conduct Authority—when they sat there they could actually join bits up, because they were also seeing the same defendants coming through week after week, month after month. Now, that might be as simple as saying—you’ve got some old drunk, winter’s coming on—“I’ll give him six months so he can go and dry himself out. Give him six months at Mount Crawford and he’ll come out.” We know he’ll probably start again, but that judge actually had the ability to look and understand everything that was going on.

Yes, we’ll have another judge here—we could have another five judges—but unless we fully understand what the role of those judges is, and if in doing so we’re completely disempowering them, we’re completely taking any judgment out of the judges, we might as well change their name. In fact, we used to call them magistrates. I’m one of those old-fashioned guys. I think “magistrate” had a little bit more of a sort of mythology around it than just “judge”—I think we did that in about 1980. A lot of the old characters I’m talking about were magistrates.

I’m not standing here saying let’s go back and call them magistrates, but what I would like to say, and I’ll leave the Opposition with this, is that they’re going to be looking at different legislation. When you’re sitting around, you’re going to be in your caucuses and someone will bring another piece of legislation saying, “This is going to solve everything. This is going to solve everything—the common cold, right the whole way through—if we just pass this.” What I invite those opposite to do is just give a bit of thought, and those that have stood in the District Court, those that have been part of the justice system, just think, “OK, is this Trumpian? Is this to make a Trumpian-type of arrangement around justice and it’s going to fix everything?” Well, it won’t any more than those judges who will sit there. Give them the opportunity to actually join the dots up themselves.

Again, as Mr Ferris said, just try and take a little bit of a holistic view. Yes, there are people who should never see the light of day. There are people, and I’ll be the first to say it—and they’re relatively easy to identify—make sure those people do their time and stay in there, but also be very careful that you have a system that those people almost become obscured by a wave of people who the justice system has probably failed. Again, I’ll tell you what, and I’ll go back, Mr Meager, because you’re standing in front of me: having been a lawyer, you know full well where if you’d made submissions for people who have come in with a good family—and you’re saying, “Don’t give this person the maximum”. Be very careful. You may well—sorry, Mr Meager. Someone in your position may be doing that very same thing again at one stage, so just be wary of such prescription and give this very judge—and I’m coming back, Madam Speaker—who is going to be appointed as a result of this the ability to do their job. Give them the ability to join things up, because otherwise, yes, I heard the previous speaker say, “Isn’t it wonderful. We’re going to fill more jails up.” Well, they cost money.

The other thing too—and I actually believe, and some of my colleagues don’t, we should actually sometimes make more use of imprisonment but make smarter use of imprisonment. I’ll give you a really good example of that. Everyone talks about the New York law reforms. Well, when I was in the Police Association, we brought the deputy commissioner who was Bratton’s deputy at the time, and when those reforms went through, it was obviously going to result in a lot more people being arrested, a lot more people going to jail. Well, what the police did was they said to the city, “Look, don’t worry about it. If the prisons get full, put them out at the top end. The fact they’re going in at the bottom end is more important.” The fact of imprisonment is actually as important as a deterrent than the length of the imprisonment.

I actually honestly believe that, because, actually, we say: “He only got 12 months.” Think about it. You know, as MPs, you have to be down here for four days away from home. Actually 12 months is a very long time. Twelve months is actually not a bad sentence, because it means that probably when that person comes out of prison, their partner will still be there. If you go for four years, their partner probably won’t be there and they’ll be absolutely guaranteed to go straight back into it. I worked as an undercover police officer and the most dangerous time for me as an undercover police officer was when I’ve infiltrated a group, I’m sitting in a bar, and someone comes out of prison where they’ve been away for three years. The first thing they’ll do is look around: “He’s a new face, he might be a cop.” Actually what they were going to do is go straight back into the very place that they’d been to.

Madam Speaker, I know this is starting to get a little bit—I can see the look on your face; I’ve had it myself when I’ve been sitting in that Chair. If I go back to Mr Ferris’ point, the bits are joined up. We are going to shortly be passing legislation that gives one more judge there, but what I’ll say is that the next time in the caucuses that we’re going to be discussing what this person is going to be doing, let them be a judge. Look at the word. Look what they’re called; they’re called judges. That means give them the ability to make a judgment, because what I fear is that there will be some quite big injustices.

Go back. Yes, there absolutely are people who should never see the light of day, and I’d be very happy that they never see the light of day, but on the other hand, there are people who the fact of jail, the fact they’ve just done three months, six months, sitting in their cells, scared as hell who’s going to come there in the middle of the night—they will go and say, “Actually, I’m never going back there again.” Leave them there for two or three years and they’ll become so adapted to the place, they’ll be part of it, and actually by the time they come out in three years, they’re going to go straight back in because they’ve got no ability to work on the outside.

All I would just say is if we’re going to appoint another judge, give him or her the ability to take into account some of the things that I have just talked about so that when they do make a judgment, it’s not AI, it’s not tick, tick, tick, bang. You might as well otherwise have a little robot sitting there. It’s a bit like speakers in the House. Give them the ability to be a little bit different, eh, Madam Speaker? While commending this to the House, let’s take this as an opportunity to actually be a bit smart. The most important word in this whole bill is the word “judge”. Let them judge. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Mr O’Connor. That was very entertaining.

If I could be a judge for a moment, I’d be giving the member Greg O’Connor a 10 out of 10 for energy, enthusiasm, and hand gestures. What did he have? He found his inner Anna Lorck and got the Berocca—he got up and had the Berocca and had a good time with the 10 minutes, and well done to the member for a great contribution.

We seem to have sort of strayed a little bit on this debate. Fundamentally, it’s about increasing the amount of District Court judges from 182 to 183—that’s simply all it is. We can talk about prisons, and we can talk about institutional racism, in some people’s eyes, but, ultimately, we’re just increasing the District Court judges from 182 to 183, and we’re enabling it. That’s all we’re doing. The reason we’re doing it is because they’ve had an increased workload over the last couple of years and over recent times, so we’re giving them extra capability to do their job.

We could go on about the causes of crime and what one side of the House would do versus the other side of the House, or we could just talk about the legislation, which is increasing the amount of District Court judges from 182 to 183, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you. This is a job where we really are encouraged to think deeply about things, so while I take the member Tom Rutherford’s point, I think it is very important we join the dots in this situation. We have a movement of just a single judge, and we have that decision to do that because we have enormous delays in our system and they are feeling overwhelmed.

Now, I want to take the example really of the Chief District Court Judge, who has brought an enormous amount to the role itself. He’s a Māori man who’s come up from the army. He came in as a mature student, and he’s been a real leader in developing the District Courts into a more responsive place, and they’re doing incredible work. He came up with a scheme which was called Te Ao Mārama—it became a framework for acting in this space and acting effectively in this space. It’s a really important thing that he immediately talks about the backlog in the courts. He immediately says it’s really important we get these decisions out, but that isn’t where he stopped; he actually talked about other things that were important if it was going to be an effective system.

We have really good leads in the Family Court; we have, I think, Sandra Moran. In the Youth Court, we have Ida Malosi. They’re incredible people. They’re from backgrounds which probably they wouldn’t have been a few years ago—my friend Greg O’Connor was talking about the way that the magistrates were. They are from very diverse backgrounds, and they bring all that to bear in their areas. What the chief judge said is those areas are really important. It’s really important that when we put people into those positions and in those courts, we really need to make sure we’re supporting those people in them.

He, interestingly, recognised that 83 percent of the people in our prisons who were aged 18, 19, and 20 had been in State care—83 percent. He also said that 50 percent of prisoners had been subject to family violence before they went there, and 60 percent of those were Māori; 70 percent of women in prison have been subject to family violence. These are very, very real things. What he’s trying to do is build a system which actually solves problems—he calls it solution-focused judging. He’s trying to make sure that the judges are going in there and they’re doing not a tick-box exercise but they’re actually finding solutions so you don’t have these people coming back. These are things that will, hopefully, be things that our new judge will be encouraged to do.

Now, I’ve got to say I was concerned to see the support for boot camps, and the financial support for those without any evidence. But the Chief District Court Judge was told with regard to these policies, which are informed by the actual work that those people have done—he had to prove they work before he got any funding for them. That’s an interesting thing, isn’t it? We’ve got these people who are highly skilled, they’ve come out of professions, and now I’m saying they’re coming out of diverse communities, and they want to do these things. Are we actually adequately supporting them to do these things?

Isn’t it our responsibility to think a bit deeply, not to do what Carl Bates did on the other side of the House today? There’s almost an alienness in what he said. He talks about “these people”—you know, “keeping these people inside”. That’s shallow thinking. These people are our children, our family—these people are us. It’s very, very important that we see those connections. These people are prisoners, but they’re also victims, because those tend to come from the same place. I go back to that number—we have 83 percent of those 18- and 19- and 20-year-olds having been in State care. That’s a huge correlation.

It is our obligation in this House when we are adding a new District Court judge to think really deeply about what we are doing and to think, “OK, we’ll do this. We’ll add this resource. But are we really adding the support we need to these people who are deeply committed, passionate advocates for justice and for rehabilitation, for example—are we adding?” Now, I just want to have a talk about—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don’t want to get too judgmental about this; 183 sounds like a fantastic idea. I commend this bill to the House.

I think the time has come for the lunch break. This House is adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12.58 p.m.